At low volume adoption, infrastructure costs for BETs are much lower than the cost of setting up even a small hydrogen refuelling station (HRS). However, a HRS has the advantage of being able to refuel much more trucks in a day, leading to a better utilisation rate and amortisation.

Currently, depending on its capacity, a hydrogen tank can be filled with gaseous hydrogen at 700 bar pressure in about 20-30 minutes to enable the FCET to have a real driving range of 600-700 km. With technical improvements, the refilling time could potentially drop to 10-15 minutes in the future, which is comparable to the refuelling time in conventional diesel fuelled Heavy Duty Trucks (HDTs).

“This offers FCETs a significant edge,” it notes.

Siding with one technology over the other is fraught with challenges however, as the paper illustrates their numerable pros and cons.

The white paper was presented by Dr. Srinath Rengarajan, Senior Manager Corporate & Portfolio Strategy at Quantron. He summarised his scientific analysis as follows: “Until now, there have been many dogmatic discussions based on narrowly defined or limited analyses. However, a holistic view shows that both BEV and FCEV technologies are required for the earliest possible realisation of emission-free transport solutions. Ultimately, the requirements of the end customers along with specific use cases decide on the most suitable solution.”

While the cost of setting up the charging infrastructure at one location is comparatively lower in case of BETs than in case of FCETs, the reliability and robustness of both chargers and hydrogen refuelling networks needs to be standardised and improved as the technologies mature, the report adds.

While BETs have a higher energy efficiency, there are certain challenges associated with electricity. Currently, the electricity mix is itself quite carbon intensive in many parts of Europe and North America, so charging a zero-emission vehicle with such electricity simply shifts tailpipe emissions upstream.

“Therefore, it is critical to scale up electricity from renewables, tapping sources like solar, wind, hydro and geothermal power,” the paper states.

Battery manufacturing is an energy intensive process, with about 50kWh of energy currently needed to produce 1kWh of batteries. Similarly, the process of electrolysis to generate green hydrogen is also energy intensive; to generate 1kWh of green hydrogen, about 1.2-1.4kWh of electricity is needed.

“The resulting higher energy costs for FCETs in comparison to BETs can effectively erode any advantage gained from the FCET refuelling infrastructure costing lesser than the corresponding BET charging
infrastructure,” it notes.

Hydrogen is a promising energy carrier since it can be produced in a variety of ways at locations which have favourable energy economics, and then be transported more easily to the point of consumption.

It may be produced locally from on-shore wind or solar installations to improve their utilisation during non-peak hours, decentralised at waste-to-hydrogen facilities, or at locations with much higher wind/solar energy availability and transported over pipelines or maritime ships.

Further, demand and supply side factors coupled with the impetus being provided by various institutions is expected to help lower the cost of hydrogen as a fuel over the long term, which would also provide a fillip to lowering the operating costs of FCETs.

Heavy duty trucks (HDTs) are a backbone of the global economy and supply chains. In the US for example, trucks haul over 10.5bn tonnes of goods, making up 70% of the country’s freight.

The major challenge now for fuel cell systems is scaling them and reducing costs, which can only come when there is a higher penetration of fuel cell vehicles, the report adds.

This is the proverbial ‘chicken-and-egg’ issue, as it has also been the case with battery electric vehicles in the last few years. The technical know-how and familiarity with the technology is expected to be instrumental in achieving cost decreases through economies of scale as large volume production lines are set up and standardised.

“We remain convinced that this is not an either-or choice between BETs and FCETs, but rather, a matter of creating synergies and an optimal mix between the two technology solutions,” the report concludes.